endorsement of speaker newt gingrich. then carroll mckinney, chairman of new hampshire on her parents' group endorsement for ron paul for president. and john dunbar looks at the impact of super packs in the 2012 campaign. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]. good morning, it's saturday, january 7. you're watching "the washington journal." you're we have a picture of downtown new hampshire on the screen. we look at the continuing countdown of our first 25 minutes of our program. we'd like for you to get involved in the conversation. talk to us about the candidates, the primary, what's happened before, what's going to happen afterwards all for you on the

first 35 minutes. the numbers, 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-628-0205 for independents. special line for new hampshire residents. 202-628-0814. 202-628-0814. tell us what you're supporting. going out to campaign events today to prepare for tuesday's primary. you want to get in touch with us electronically, we have three ways to do that. send us an e-mail, the address there is journal@c-span.org. on twitter, c-span wj and if you want to take part of the conversation always going on on facebook, facebook..com/c-span.

we'll begin with a look at this morning's "washington post" from their campaign 2012 section. the headline, "romney holds strong lead in new hampshire and south carolina." gop presidential rivals hold weekend debates off of a chance to weaken his support. dan balk and rachel weaner. romney holds a formidable lead in new hampshire days before heading to tuesday's primary and solidifies his position in the battleground state of south carolina according to new polls which his rivals are looking to. with his rivals looking to a pair of weekend debates to knock out or knock, rather, the gop front-runner off of his stride. romney's path to the nomination is aided by the fact that conservative republicans who oppose them have not co-lessed around a candidate.

rick santorum is looking for a clear second place finish in new hampshire to propel him to south carolina as the principal alternative to romney. romney's growing strength aided by the narrow victory tuesday in iowa caucuses added a sense of urgency to find a way to show the former massachusetts governor's momentum which threatens to bring an early conclusion to the nomination battle. we're going go to the phones now. chattanooga, tennessee is where the first one comes from. west on our line for democrats. wes, you're on "the washington journal," go ahead caller: yes, good morning, america, good morning, c-span. i wanted to call in and say what an excellent job c-span is doing. i look forward to "washington journal" every morning as any other american would like to do. i would like to thank c-span for being the third leg of the

propaganda program set aside by the republicans. and just keep up the good work. because we pubs are bound to win what's been so led to the right of this country, which means bad news for this country. thank you so much. >> we're going to move on to our republican line. and todd in long beach is our next caller. go ahead, todd. caller: i would like to say i'm supporting rick santorum. i think he's fantastic candidate. and it was interesting something the romney campaign said recently when they were asked about santorum surging. they said, well, they think he doesn't really have time to surge here in new hampshire. in other words, it's not that he's a better candidate or has great things to say or they want to defend their record versus

his, but rather he doesn't have the time in one week to do it. so i thought it was a very odd statement from a campaign that's supposed to be so great with a great nominee or person they're running in mitt romney. made no sense whatsoever. and i think it shows a weakness on their part and not as straight as i would think they would want to have a long conversation. but i guess not. >> todd, tell me specifically one or two things about senator santorum that you like and why you support him for the -- for the presidency? >>. caller: well, he has -- first of all, he's been a bit ignored on his jobs plan which is bringing manufacturing to the country. if we remember what that is. and he has great incentives to do that. and that is a very middle of the road blue collar type of job, not the type of job mitt romney

is talking about. he doesn't really create jobs. he would be more of a corporate type that would like to send jobs out of the country. and make more profit 3wu not help the average person. he's great on the moral issues. that's an important thing for this country at this time. it needs that a little bit. >> do you think senator santorum has time? is there enough time for him to build up some momentum in new hampshire and also moving on to south carolina and florida? >> there is over time. if new hampshire gives him no chance, it will become increasingly difficult naturally which is why they should give him a chance and vote for him. we know romney is going to win

anyhow. but they should give him a chance so other states can take a real good look at him that have the time to see him. they won't reject him if he's not what he seems to be. but he's a very authentic candidate versus romney who's been so inauthentic his whole career as a politician. >> todd, leave it there and move on to ron alleged on the line for independents coming in from new york, new york this morning. go ahead, ronald. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. just wondering whether anybody considers it's remarkable that universal suffrage in this country actually workings. the division that even c-span has on its line for republican, independent, and democratic hopes to divide the country. and when you hear some of the

anger that people express in such a division over many things, it always puzzles me that in spite of the -- in spite of the anger, the system itself works. >> we divide the callers in order to help generate a mix of conversation and to make sure all sides are represented. caller: i understand that. and as i say, from considerable amount of the anger, the racial direction and this, that, and the other thing, it astounds me that the american system does manage to work. >> let me get your thoughts on this. this is from "the washington post" this morning. the headline, new hampshire's independence ready to turn discontent to action. they write independents are a fin i can and fickle bunch. they're deeply dissatisfied with the direction of the country with the majority saying things are badly off track.

social issues do not concern them. many voted for president obama. now, this critical voting bloc, the independents, which makes up 45% of the new hampshire electorate is about to take center stage. if the iowa contest exposed the conflicted mood and sharp divisions within the republican party, then the new hampshire primary will offer a snapshot of a hard-to-pin-down sliver of the electorate that has an outside impact on election, particularly in the swing states. caller: yes, i think that's very pertinent. and probably the thing is there are a hell of a lot of independents. you got a much less biassed attack on things from that group. and from either of the -- either of the right or the left. >> ronald on the line for independents. move on to indianapolis. steve on the line for republicans calling from

indianapolis. go ahead, steve. caller: yes, good morning. i want to say we are a republic. the republic holds the leaders accountable for the laws they create. and we're watching our country being destroyed by the laws they're creating because they don't follow any laws. a democracy basically -- so the constitutionalists want to protect us from them. they are the ones that are spending all of the money. >> what does this have to do with the new hampshire primary on tuesday. caller: vote ron paul. he's the only one going towards the constitution. i'm looking forward to seeing a person in the house that's more directed towards the constitution. >> go ahead? caller: well, you know, there's other good candidates. i'm not ditching them. but we have to get the people

out of here we've got to look out for ourselves because the government out there is not looking out for any of us. get a handout, so to speak even in the tenth. i've never been unemployed, a high school dropout and i work for a living. >> grace on the line b for democrats. go ahead, grace. caller: thank you for c-span. doing a fantastic job. between john stewart and the book on "utopia," i like how you covered the financial crisis, i went to a romney event and i talked to where several people work, he said, all right. nobody taked about it. he didn't same who should earn what and who doesn't earn it now. i'm wondering if that has

something to do with the occupy wall street movement. and if i get a chance to go to some of the roof top politics things that we have in new hampshire, it's really nice, because we do have a chance to talk there to people who are running for office up close and personal. that's one question i would like to have asked him is what does it mean? who does he think doesn't earn? >> they say you ear a democrat on our teleprompter there. have you been to any events, any of the republican campaign events just to check it the various candidates? are you thinking about supporting a republican candidate? >> the only one i went to was the one for romney. because unless they come to my particular town and don't go to them. i think that i want to save it

for the people who live in the area. i don't usually go to the event. it's some big venue. if it's a small venue, i try not to step on the toes of the residents who live in that area. >> a look at some of the numbers associated with the new hampshire primary. first, the cnn/time south carolina -- i'm sorry, that's a south carolina poll that's here in the newspapers. in "the washington post." the results of a new cnn/time opinion poll. friday's poll shows romney at 37%, santorum at 19%, and gingrich at 18%. a month ago. quite a different picture. romney at 20%, santorum, 4%, gingrich at 43%. that's the south carolina numbers put together by "time," cnn, and the opinion research poll people. back to the phones, gabe on our line for republicans calling

from tampa this morning. go ahead, gabe. >> good morning, c-span. i just wanted to say, you know, $15 trillion in debt. they don't -- no one talks enough about that. and 900 military bases around the world. that's a global empire. we can't afford it anymore. and ron paul seems like he's the only one who will just get right on that issue. $15 trillion in debt. something is wrong. we're doing something big. >> gabe, we're counting down to the new hampshire primary. but the florida primary is at the end of this month. how much support are you seeing for ron paul down there? what are 4iz -- his numbers like? caller: they're low. he's third, fourth. i just don't thin -- i don't think mitt romney, anything is going to change. but i have a feeling he'll be

the one that gets the -- gets the vote around here. but i don't think anything will change. i'm big. big ron paul supporter and i try to -- anybody who will turn their ear my way, i'm throwing ron paul at them. >> gabe in tampa, florida. speaking of governor romney this morning in the op-ed section, romney wins and takes a beating. mitt romney's victory in iowa is unappreciated. it was a well run campaign and no one thought the day of the ames straw poll in august that it would happen. the victory of rick santorum is a pundit humbler, no one saw that coming even six weeks ago except perhaps rick santorum. the iowa results reflect the republican party which roughly speaking is to three parts, libertarian, social conservatives, moderate conservatives who went for ron

paul. mr. santorum and mr. romney respectively. the three parts of the party are held together by the agreement on three big issues. spending which much be cust, taxing which must be reformed. and president obama who must be removed. another call from tampa, florida, this one terry on the democrats line. go ahead, terry. >> i changed over to democratic because you can look at him, the way they talk, the way they act. they don't give a crap about nobody. it's worthless. >> okay. >> burlington, massachusetts on the line for independence. off ear on the washington journal. >> hi, thanks for taking my call. >> what do you have in this countdown to the new hampshire primary? >> i'm supporting ron paul. i never voted for a democrat or a republican in many i life. now i have a chance -- i wanted to praise the caller from

florida who talked about ron paul and the empire. he's the only one, the only one to faulk about the blowback foreign policy we have. the cia has been overthrowing government for year else. and they keep these things secret and we wonder why we get attacked. he's the only true conservative in this race. he's the only one that addresses the debt. rick santorum wants to protect corporations. the money they made in the free trade agreement, they go overseas, cheap labor, make the money. they can bring the profits back. he didn't say what we're going to do about undermining my workers here. all of them are ne-yo conservatives, not true conservatives. ron paul is the only one who's honest, principled, who stands for something. anybody who votes for any of the other guys, perry, santorum, all the other guys, i actually, i'm more of a -- i'm very liberal on

many things. but the only way i'm looking for ron paul is that he's honest. he's the only one to bring true change to the election. >> you seem passionate for your support for -- caller: i was very disenchanted with politics. i don't want fox news picking out presidents anymore. i think people are voting too small. they're not looking at the big picture. ron paul understands the cause for it, we have 900 naval bases in 130 countries. we occupied okinawa. he wanted us out of there for years. >> frank in burlington, massachusetts. in the concord monitor, paul, president must protect freedom. candidate returns with focused pitch. ron paul known and adored by his supporters for his rambling speeches panned roaming tangents back in new hampshire for the

republican presidential candidate. he brought a focus on crowd-pleasing lines. at a town hall meeting in durham, paul had the small government noninterventionist platform and hammered home policy points. the job of the president is to protect your freedom. he told a crowd of 400 in durham. he said it isn't to run the world, your life, and it isn't to run the economy. steve on the line for independents in temple, massachusetts. go ahead, steve. caller: yeah. i just wanted to say the companies that are sent overseas and sending products back in, they should be equaling out the unemployment aspects on wages that we pay and they don't have to pay. and might want to consider that to the fact that everyone is talking about jobs, jobs, jobs.

and, you know, all of these jobs have been pushed overseas and they're holding us hostage, the rich are basically holding us hostage to this point. the best way for government to fix that is to come right down and equal out our wages through tariffs. that's not being done. and the other thing is what totally for ron paul. ron paul is a constitutionalist and that's what we need to save our country. if mitt romney gets in or something like that, or even in -- we need -- even obama continues, we're doomed. so, please, people, wake up to the facts. check out ron paul. thanks. >> john on the line for republicans in statesville, north carolina, go ahead, john? caller: good morning to c-span, the only true news program on tv. yeah, my comment is that i think

the love of money is the root of all political evil. i got two things to say on that. campaign finance reform. that needs to be fixed. that needs to be a certain limit on what they can spend. they need to report within 48 hours of who contributes to the campaign. and then the lobbyists, that should be illegal as well. these lobbyists who go in and pay people, political people, to make the laws their way. there's something wrong with that system. the third thing i have to say, last year, i don't know how many people realize it, over 1 billion cell phones made in this country, made in the world. zero were made in this country. i don't understand why five foreign countries have donated $750,000 each to obama's

administration. that's just hard for me to understand that. >> we'll be talking about campaign financing later on in the program in terms of super pacs and the impact on the 2012 campaign and our guest will be john dunbar, the managing editor for the center of public integrity. that will be coming up around 9:15's turn time in this program. next up, chicago, illinois, jesse on the line for democrats. jesse, on the "washington journal." caller: good morning, sir. how are you doing? i would like to make a comment. i think it's important for the republican party to see how important -- how ron paul can go over to the liberal and independents. i was for obama before -- before being for obama was popular. now, ron paul, he's the nominee, he's -- actually takes my vote away from obama.

and i think the republican party can look at that and consider that a factor for the next candidate. thank you. >> a tweet from obama games who writes romney and obama are the same, one big happy family of robbing the american people. wall street controls these fools. next up, chris, on the line for republicans calling from sarasota, florida. off ear on "the wa journal". caller: i'd like to thank c-span for the job you're doing and my support here for ron paul. i've been hearing some of the callers making a valid point and everything that he says, everything that the man says is just the honest truth from the logical standpoint. nobody else wants to address

these things. they're beating around the bush to avoid these subjects. he's not afraid to attack where everything needs to be done, where it should be handled. financially, foreign policy, civil liberties, the whole gamut, everything that's involved, he makes sense. and i just -- i'm glad to hear that so many people are like minded and logical. >> chris in sarasota, florida. another op-ed from "the wall street journal" this morning. the headline, the new hampshire primary is good for the democracy. primary voters like to prethat don't pay attention to what happens in iowa. nonsense, new hampshire voters react to the iowa caucus results confirming or correcting them as needed. south carolinians will do the same in turn. thank goodness, it's easy to disparage the way we nominate presidential candidates and the role the early states play. but it's like winston churchill

says of democracy as a whole. we have the worst nominating system imaginable except for all others -- the process works. that's an op-ed by furgas cullen in "wall street journal." he's a former chairman of the new hampshire republican party and an editorial page columnist for the new hampshire union leader. back to the phones. jacksonville, florida. betty on our line for independents. go ahead, betty? caller: i believe that huntsman's strategy will be to come in strong late in the game. he'll take the offense this weekend and attack romney and gingrich at the debate. six months ago, huntsman, he set up his campaign headquarters here in florida which i found unusual being he's from utah. but president bush and his wife, barbara endorse huntsman.

show does the former governor jeb bush also supports them. since they believe they should stay in the family, i believe huntsman will pick jeb bush as the vice president. >> from what you've seen of governor huntsman and ambassador huntsman? you still with me? betty's gone. move on to brett on our line for independents in washington, d.c. go ahead, brett. caller: i am sorry you didn't get to ask betty her question. i think she's right one third. i'm an independent. we're at least one third of the electorate. the only -- i agree with betty. any intelligence -- huntsman, i voted for the president, president obama. and ron paul is a little bit out there. so he's not electable, i guess the pundits are at least right about that. but he's coming on strong. my only problem is i think

america, whether or not it's on the gold standard, we're on a down slide because the whole world is kind of run by the elite. i'm the opposite of the elite. i guess my goal might be to become psychologically incompetent. the problem with the system is you come to the politician -- it's a political corporate complex because every politician has gotten rich at least ten times. there's no law against a politician during insider trading. they're not representative of the rest of the population. i don't know what the answer is. i'm throwing that out there for someone to think about. because there isn't anywhere in the city where i am right now, washington, d.c., you at c-span, or anybody on capitol hill who represents what the average person is anymore. in a global system, politicians all over the world cheat and they win nachlt's my -- and

that's my comment, thanks. >> as the campaign continues through new hampshire. the next stop is south carolina. governor perry is running an ad right now. show you the ad. going to move on to newspaper articles and phone calleds. >> the west texas be town, i learned the values of hardwork, faith, and family. i took those values with me when i served our country as a pilot in the air force. i return home to the farm and ranch with my father and married my high school sweetheart. the values i learned served me well as governor of texas and continue to guide me as both. i'm rick perry. i approve this message. >> back to the phones, baltimore, maryland on the line for democrats. you're on the washington journal. >> i want to make two quick points. for one, i think the republicans are getting a lot of progress in this country because they want

white people to make the assumption of just blame the black guy. and two, for the ron paul fanatics out there, ron paul is not the one to bring barack obama down, okay? if you guys think he's so good and can do so much for the country, have him run third party, if not, be quiet. he's not going back up what he's saying. that's the point i would like to make. thank you very much. >> the lead story in this morning's "new york times," the jobs are a sign in the u.s. recovery. unemployment at 8.5%. shayla dejuan rights employers at the united states added 200,000 jobs last month a labor department said friday, a report that came on the heels of a flurry of economic news and signaled gathering momentum in the recovery, consumer confidence lifted factories, stepped up production, and small business signs -- small

businesses showed signs of life, the nation's unemployment rate fell to 8.5%, the lowest level in nearly three years. it was the sixth consecutive month that the economy showed a net gain of more than 100,000 jobs, not enough to restore employment to prerecession levels, but enough, perhaps, to cheer president obama as he enters the election year. no sitting president has won re-election with an unemployment rate of 8.5%. but mr. obama is calculating that he can make an incredible -- make a credible argument, rather, that he took over a country in an economic disaster and slowly walked it back. also, regarding the numbers that came out yesterday on the front page of the financial times weekend section -- u.s. job growth eases recession

fears amid world slowdown concerns. they write data confirms u.s. growth has picked up in a crucial moment when the world is threatened by the eurozone's sovereign debt problems and a slowdown in china. analysts said it may herald a new phase for global currency markets. the dollar index rallied to its highest level in 16 months, as investors speculated that better data made it less likely that the federal reserve would conduct further quantitative easing creating money to pump up to the economy for much of the last year, the dollar fell when investors' appetite for risk incleesed. read more about that in the financial time ms. back to the phones, glreg, on te line for republicans. caller: ron paul is not only electable, he's necessary. if you care about freedom, personal responsibility, your children's future, the constitution, ron paul is the guy.

people like levine, coulter, rush, they're hypocrites. they preach the constitution. but when the rubber meets the road, they shred the constitution. if the establishment gop thinks they're going to fall in line and vote for santorum or romney, they have another thing coming. we have ear angry. we don't want anything to do with the crony capitalism, we'll vote third party or whomever. but we're not going fall in line. >> are you still with me? caller: i am. >> with the numbers that representative paul has been able to put up so far, why do you think he's electable? caller: because of his message. the only candidate standing for the constitution that said he wouldn't back it up. he has 12 terms of backing it up. he's got a track record. he's going to vote no on anything that is against the constitution. especially the young people, they get it. they see their future is in jeopardy. they want to preserve their

future for their children. but the way things are going now, i am not optimistic about our future. the gingriches and the santorums, they're the same. they're controlled by the corporate interests. >> the next call comes from bethlehem, pennsylvania. dale on the line for democrats. go ahead, dale. >> good morning. lost the last election by 18 points. give you one quick the so everybody understands. he would like to make prophylaxis illegal which is how bad he is on birth control which is ridiculous in our perverse society. i want to take voting to the republican governors. they say they're concerned about fraud. i hold a position here. last election which is what the

republicans take a lot of credit for, winning the election, the obama death panels and things like that. senior citizens came to the voting place and i was asked, obama allowed to have death panels? i'm not allowed to answer that question. we're not allowed to answer any political question for any voter and the republican sits right next to me and that's the way it's done. there's no suppression. signatures are required. there's no fraud in pennsylvania. >> let me get back to the topic this morning. the countdown to the new hampshire primary. an old loss dogs surging santorum. poor showing in pennsylvania in '06 wages questions about electability. but romney lost twice too. they write among the biggest challenges for the republican

nomination is this -- can he explain away the crushing defeat seen the last time he sought elected office. your thoughts about that, dale? caller: the crushing defeat was based on many thingings. we found that his children were being schooled in the private school and pennsylvania taxpayers were paying for it. he lives in virginia. there's a lot of things because i'm not sure of the accuracy of all of them. those are two of the things. his staff is anti-birth control, that sort of thing. there's a story afoot that he actually had a stillborn child when he took -- he's unelectable. the stories get out there. >> dale, we're going to move on to hookset, new hampshire. maryland, a republican calling this morning. go ahead, maryland. caller: good morning. oh, i'm -- first of all totally appalled at the behavior of

romney and paul with the sneaky dirty attack ads against newt gingrich. to me, only a small-minded person uses this kind of technique. 245i don't have anything worth telling or anything they can defend. so they have to tear somebody else down. and when you have someone as outstanding as gingrich, maybe you don't have anything else. but the it's winning the presidency or the republican candidate worth not giving the country what's the best for you? >> maryland, how many events have you been to so far in this primary season? who have you seen? who's impressed you the most? caller: i haven't been out because i haven't been feeling well. but i've been listening very carefully on television and radio. and i've written a couple of editorials to the union leader.

>> maryland, we hope you feel better. you going to go out and vote on the primary on tuesday? caller: i hope i'll work at the polls. >> okay, have you worked at the polls before? caller: no, the last time i was involve in a political activity, i wasn't old enough to vote yet. that was for stevenson, that was a very long time ago. but newt gingrich really captures my attention. >> all right. marilyn in hook set, new hampshire. thanks for the call. marilyn mentioned some of the advertisements. we want to show you another one. this is an anti-huntsman ad. we want to be careful to note is created by ron paul supporters and congressman paul has disavowed this ad.

♪

again. i want to reiterate that that ad was created by ron paul supporters and congressman ron paul disavowed the ad. back to michigan. james on the line for independents call from detroit, michigan. go ahead, james. caller: going to take away from the ad as well. i will have to say i'm a ron paul supporter myself. but that ad was kind of like people who know we need to somehow lend our loosened ties with china which is the applicable candidate, kind of like bush and his ambassadorship to them as well. nothing wrong with the message of he failed -- whoever made that to include that there's trade deals where there's rage

commission boards that decide what products get made where and how many in quantity. how much fear of the world would be industrialized for any given time. talking about people who have the nations. that's the main concern. however, you know, i see the message. you just fail to include something to lead people to know that it's not being racial, but it's showing a lot more favoritism in parts of the world than home bound like the other caller with the cell phone comment. >> you said you're a supporter of ron paul? caller: i have to say i am, even though i found in a state-wide party here in michigan called the anti-nafta party. anti-naftaparty.org. but we're in the signature-collection process. >> let me ask you this, james, before i let grow. the -- the new hampshire

primary, it's coming up on tuesday. then the michigan primary is february 28. do you think that based on congressman paul's performance in iowa and the numbers that you've seen coming out of new hampshire that he's still going to be in the running in the end of february? >> yeah, in fact, you'll have to change the tune on some of the articles you're reading, including the graph chart and percentages where ron paul wasn't even mentioned. i -- i don't see gingrich in a third spot. i see a paul in a third spot. >> we've got a tweet from boringfileclerk. the one thing new hampshire and all of the other primaries show is that none of the current lineup is fit to be elected as president. another call from detroit, michigan this morning. this comes from fred on our line for republicans.

good morning, fred. caller: good morning. >> based on -- based on the numbers coming out of new hampshire and the results from iowa that ron paul, governor perry, former speaker gingrich, former governor huntsman, any of the four guys going to be on the ballot when the primary comes to michigan. >> yes, i believe that ron paul is going to be on the list. further more, i'd like to say that i switched over from supporting obama to ron paul. i like what he had to say. he's an honest and true man. all of the other -- all of the other candidates that are dancing around the issues. and ron paul is taking it safe to say he's telling people exactly what we need to do to repair the problems that we have in this country. and the other one -- the other candidates are just -- like i say, they're just dancing around the issues.

so my support is for dr. ron paul. i believe he will be our next president of the united states. thank you. >> next up, akron, ohio. joan on our line for democrats. good morning, joan. caller: yes. i was just calling to say new hampshire and south carolina and all of these places doesn't make no difference because they're stealing the votes, they're blocking the vote else. they won't -- i mean, they're just doing all kinds of ungodly things. and i just want to say this one thing to the people that listened today, look up in your dictionary, look up what conservatives mean. look up what a lib ram means. read the bible, and read with the bible says about a stingy man is a conservative man. >> in the business section of

this morning's "new york times," sec changes policy on firms, admissions of guilt. this is by edward wyatt who writes the securities and exchange commission and internal policy shifts said friday they would no longer allow the defendants to say they would no longer admit or deny insider trading charges when at the same time they admit of having been convicted of criminal violations. the first time the sec stepped back from the long-standing practice of allowing companies to settle fraud charges by paying a fine without admitting wrongdoing. it will change where a company or individual enters an agreement with criminal authorities to defer prosecution or not to be prosecuted as part of a settlement. baltimore maryland, on the line for independents. go ahead, john. >> calling in support of buddy roemer, the republican nominee. i think he's the one candidate

which is money where he limits the donation to $100 from any individual and he refuses to take any pac money. i think if you want a candidate, it's willing to change. you have to start with campaign finance reform. corporate money, corporate dollars, big interest dollars out of the race. >> john, on our line for independents. thanks for calling. the republican liberty caucus in new hampshire and a support for ron paul. but coming up after this break, a discussion with the new hampshire leader's publisher, joseph mcquaid. but first, a visit to the red arrow diner in manchester, a frequent spot for candidates on the campaign trail. >> the red arrow diner is in

downtown manchester. here inside, how long? >> poo between 15 and 16 years. >> when did the dviner start? >> it opened in 1922. >> who has it gone by? has it gone through many ownerships? >> the girl who owns it now owned it for 25 years. carol sheehan. before that, the lamontagnings. and i'm not sure who before that. >> has it always been a campaign stop for the political candidate. >> for the time i've been here, it has. i've been here through the central election for me. >> you've seen the presidential candidates. they've come through here through the years. give us some memorable ones. >> the last campaign, barack obama. he was nice. when i was working, he kind of walked through the front door and i picked my head up.

there he was. it was quite nice. >> you didn't know he was coming then? >> none of us knew. he came unannounced. no crams, no anything. he walked through the front door. it's unusual. we usually get notification. it's a surprise to see him standing there. >> what about the memorable one? >> the other memorable one would be al gore. very, very nice. he came in and he sat and had coffee and had time to talk. he was nice. my most memorable moment would be hillary clinton. i spoke with her and we had words together. it was a nice visit. >> what did you talk about? >> i told her not to let the boys bully her. we had a general conversation. i thought she feels doing a great job. she was my girl. the i wish she could have ran this term. i think if she did, we might have a woman president. >> who's the best tipper.

>> al gore is a good tipper. he gave me a $20 bill, which i have. i gave him a t-shirt and hat. i still have a few things that they gave me from air force one, from the secret service gave me a couple of little momentos. i have have those. >> what is it -- how is it different, i guess, if it is at all from four years agoing? >> i think it feels a little different this time. because i don't think anybody has the clue who to vote for yet. the range of the candidates we have to choose between this time, i think mitt romney is probably the only one that people are familiar with the campaign. the others are not so familiar. but we're learning more about some of the other candidates. >> you see polls of romney way ahead of the other candidates. do you believe that. or do you think people are still making up their mind? >> i think people are making up their minds. like i said, i think mitt romney

is such a popular name around here if you haven't watched him, you've seen some of the other candidates. that's who you vote for. it's a little scary to me. he knows this stuff. the other is we don't know enough about them. after tonight's debate, more people will have more of an idea what they're there looking for it. will you be watching tonight? >> definitely watching tonight. more about people who are watching. three people i'm watching. aisle make up my mind tonight. >> who are you watching? >> matching mitt romney naturally. the other candidate, santorum, and -- oh. >> santorum, mitt romney, hunts ann? >>

>> there is also a debate tonight and tomorrow morning and i think that will advance the decision making foreign awful lot of people. if anyone of those candidates physically makes it until sunday afternoon, we should award him the title. they have a debate from 9:00 until 11:00 tonight at st ansen college and the debate tomorrow is on "meet the press." the candidates have to be there at 7:00 in the morning. we will see how well the makeup artist can work. host: it makes for a long day. the headline in this morning's "washington post" --

the idea in your mind is that no one can actually beat romney but the other candidates are trying to close the gap between themselves on the front runner? guest: very much so but i'm a victim of conventional wisdom like everyone else. you see this same poll numbers over and over again and human nature is that you don't want to go against the tide so you save the guide will win. i fill the romney will win. he has the most money. he has the best name recognition as the waitress from the diner said. he has a home here. he has been at the red arrow. i had a cup of coffee with him last summer and a waitress came over and asked if she'd have her picture taken with them. he stands up and the waitress tents near the cameron has made to take the picture. bummer.

host: it happens like that sometimes. there is a large portion of the new hampshire republican population, those who will go to the polls on tuesday, who have not made up their mind. what can a candidate do in two days. they have been campaigning in new hampshire for well over a year. what can you do in the last two days to get a person to come over to your side or get a person to commit to your campaign if you have not able and -- have not been able to do with it? guest: you might say you're paying for the microphone, mr. green was a reference to a debate that happened on this day in 1980 when ronald reagan who was seen as the conservative guy had a meeting with george bush and some others and ronald

reagan really stole the show by being very forceful. he will already tracking to win but this really pushed him over. things can happen. i was the editor of our paper in 1972 and i was told that senator muskie was coming over to do so again from the paper and what he did was rail against my former publisher for some things that we printed and he either did or didn't lose his cool and did or didn't cry but that was the end of muskie and that was within a few days of the primary. things can happen. i don't say it will change a year's worth of campaign but for most people, other than the junkies' here and the folks on c-span, most people have not been interested until the last couple of weeks. the real problem with a modern day primary because of trying to

protect the first in the nation's status is we are just past the christmas and new year's holiday and most normal people are not paying attention or have not paid attention to politics. they wonder if they are going to get an ugly sweater for christmas and is there's no to go skiing and how can i pay for the christmas bills and the new year's hangover. new year's was just last weekend so now is when people are just beginning to focus and concentrate. we are -- on the last weekend, you would not and i think the debate would make that much difference, think it could. in our paper today, we have a nice statistical peace of the secretary of state of what he thinks the numbers will be of those who will turn out. host: we're talking with joseph mcquaid, president and

publisher of the "union leader." the phone numbers are on your screen. our first call comes from manchester, new hampshire, donald declares himself an independent, go ahead caller: people in new hampshire -- i work for a couple of people and i would say only 40% of them follow politics. he has a house here, mitt romney, and people don't have a clue. people think they have to vote for him because he is local but i think it is a joke. he will win the nomination and he will -- it will be present

obama and and and i think president obama consider moment he will still become president because mitt romney is a big- time flip-flopper. host: your thoughts about what he had to say? guest: he is right about name recognition. i happen to think that mitt romney is not the best candidate against obama. the conventional wisdom is that he is the best candidate because the economy is in trouble and governor romney is a businessman. i think the economy can turnaround at least on the surface and there are going to be other issues that come up and governor romney is -- has soared pigeonholed himself as the businessman be all and end all. an election is about more than that. conventional wisdom for the last

year has been the economy. that is the water and only focus. until recently, everybody would agree with that. the unemployment numbers, for whatever reason, are starting to trend downward the stock market has picked up little. president obama and the democrats are going to say, as they have been saying, that we have been winning the fight against this recession and the republicans have been obstructing it. the republicans will have to have a good argument against that. i think donald is also right that it may be 60% of the people, republicans in the state, who care about the election but that is quite high in american politics these days. in many races, you get 25% turnout. in the presidential primary in new hampshire, you get much

better. host: our next call comes from oxnard, calif., our line for democrats. caller: i have heard you say that romney has the probability of winning the primary because of name recognition and money. it is current sad to me that because of money -- it is kind of sad to mate and the supreme court ruling that allows an unlimited amount of money that can be given to politicians is distressing. i'm a democrat but we have people like buddy roemer. their views are rarely expressed because these guys can buy their way into office if they can influence enough people. the want to use the line about running the country because they have a business background. i would hope our country does

not base everything it does just on a business model. there are other considerations. and he wouldn paul withdraw our military forces from foreign governments to we have alliances and treaties with that are mutually effective for both nations. there are dangerous people running for these offices and other people who probably have excellent ideas that will never be heard because of money. guest: i do think money has always been used in politics and the new hampshire presidential primary is a place where the person who does not have the most money at least as a shot at making a difference. we are so geographically small that a candidate, if he or she set their mind to it, can spend

time and made an awful lot of people. that has not been the case this time around i talked to a lot of people about this especially in the national news media. because of these so-called debates because they are not classic debates where two or more people argue a particular position. with are 1-minute q &a's half a dozen candidates but because they -- there have been so many of those, that has taken away from the retail politics and the one on one asking questions by real voters in the street. that gives the money and name recognition and upper hand. look at the reelection rate of incumbent politicians at any level. it is over 90% and the reason is that they have the rain -- name recognition and i have the money and business and industry

and special interest groups want to go with the winner to advance their particular cause. i have a radical view for a conservative. if, in fact, terms were limited for every office, i would be in favor of public funding of elections. because that is the power of the incumbency that takes over, terms are not limited with the exception of the president and that is the power of the dollar. host: shenandoah, va., on airline for republicans. caller: you watch cnn and fox and they go out of their way to either put ron paul down or keep him out of the news. is there any way you can hold their feet to the fire over that? host: how?

caller: it seems to me that they are not actually telling the news. they have an agenda. to push. they are not really news. host: joseph mcquaid, among the rank-and-file folks in a hampshire, are they making up their mind based on what they have seen on television or the coverage they read a newspaper or based on their one-on-ones or opportunities to meet the candidates had various town halls and other events? guest: it is a combination of things. we have several stories in the paper this morning where several candidates have been out meeting people. i am struck by the number of people who say they came out not because they supported a candidate but because they really want to hear what the candidate had to say.

that is pretty nice. that is part of it but it is also what they see on television. there has been a dearth of political advertising in new hampshire this time around. it is a boon for local tv station which is a nice building which is known as the house that steve forbes built because when steve forbes ran into a thousand spent an incredible amount of money on television advertising. that does not happen this time around because there has not been that much money available and because of the dozen or so televised events, they have not had the need to do it. on one hand, it is nice for the new hampshire people that they have not been inundated with the same tv ads over and over again but that takes away one filter in deciding who will vote for.

i do think they read the newspaper. they don't always follow what our suggestion is for editorial endorsements. host: our next call for the president and publisher of the new hampshire "union leader" comes from our independent line. go ahead. caller: i may run paul supporter of this will be my first time voting. i support him not on all of his views but mainly on the drug or because it has been around for 40 some years. it is not very effective. it just empowers drug dealers to charge higher for their products and quite frankly, it does not help young people. i would rather see business itself and that hands of professionals, so to speak,

rather than drug dealers who will sell you anything and everything. guest: ron paul has got a very interesting following. i have compared him recently to eugene mccarthy in 1968 and eugene debs back in the 1920's. his position, you know what it is if you listen to him. he has got a lot of young people backing him. not so much of hemp which is what this guy was talking about on our foreign entanglements, i disagree with dr. paul's position. there is a bunch of negative responses when i suggested last week he is a dangerous man because of his views. because of the way the country

has handled the iraq situation and the afghanistan situation, a lot of people, young people especially, are fed up. they don't see why we are there. they are drawn to ron paul. the problem with ron paul's foreign policy position is not so much on those two issues as it is with iran where he compares it to the old soviet union and says the soviet union had 20,000 nuclear missiles pointed at us and they never use them so why should we care about iran. that, in my mind, is really crazy talk. the soviets were not looking for 70 vestal virgins when they went to the next world and did not have any religious passion whatsoever where iran does. on that score, i disagree with

ron paul. because he is such a blunt talker and because on domestic issues, many people favor them, the only way you'll cut the government is to cut the government and he names the agency's better than governor perry and how many agencies he would cut. he has his base and i also think he has his ceiling. i disagree with the earlier caller who said cnn and fox were ignoring ron paul. i don't think that is the case this time. he has run twice before and this time, many people thought he would be written off as circumstances change. because of the issues i mentioned to foreign and domestic and the ron paul unique position, he will get his share. i would not be surprised if he is the guy who comes in second here. because he is marginalized

within the party, the fight is really between the first-place guy, romney, and whoever can be the strong third place by going into the primary. host: this is from an e-mail -- has there been any fallout from the union leader's endorsement of newt gingrich? guest: when did newspaper's becoming a political fronts? 220 years ago. where this -- where has this guy been? newspapers, to a great extent, have pulled in their horns on that. "the union leaders"is different the difference between us and many liberal papers is that we will both of editorials on the front page but we label hours as

editorials and theirs is in their news coverage. people canceled their subscriptions because i called ron paul a dangerous man but then you pick up subscriptions because of what you do end said. unlike many newspapers, we let our readers have their say as well. today's newspaper has a full page of letters, half of which disagree with our endorsement and some of which are endorsing ron paul or mitt romney. we will have another full page in sunday's paper and more letters the day before the election. host: our line for republicans, calling from columbus, ohio. caller: good morning, thank you, cspan. i'm calling because i met little ticked off of america.

i am a veteran. [unintelligible] i am getting sick and tired of being deceived by government. of these elephants and donkeys. they are the same perio i am an ex-democrat. people need to wake up. the ron paul foreign policy is simple. shut down the foreign policeman and embassies and give everything back to america. we need to go back to america and made. i hear the same things for 30

years. i am 41 years old. this time to change. -- it is time to change. rumple bring the real facts of. -- ron pohl bring the real fact up. guest: i thank them for his service in that kind of statement you hear quite a bit and that is why we spend so much money abroad when we have problems here at home. to a great extent, i agree with that. speaker gingrich agrees with that and he says we have to refocus and look at what we are doing and why we are still in germany so long after world war two and why are we in the korean peninsula right after world war two. there are certain obligations that are in america's interest

to defend overseas but i don't they give is to the extent we are currently doing it and we are asking some much of our volunteer army, air force, navy, and marines that it is really playing them out and not being fair to the veterans who have had tour of duty after a tour of duty and some real tough situations. that includes not only the regular army but the national guard of which new hampshire has quite a contingent. that affects their families and communities. i think america is fed up with that kind of thing. that is what ron paul resonates with them. i just think you cannot sweep with as big a brush as he intends to do but it will attract some voters. host: next of all, on our line

from democrats from new jersey, go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm a registered democrat. i have a ron paul sticker on my car. i have a few reasons for that. i have not heard enough about him until this morning. he is honest. maybe he will go third party which is a dream of mine because i am sick of the other two. if that happens, obama will definitely win, thank you. host: i want to throw into that this e-mail -- a t thisweet--- what are your thoughts about the possible emergence of a third- party candidate during this election cycle?

guest: i think there will always be one. it is a question of how strong a third-party candidate might be. i think the democratic caller is correct that if ron paul does a third-party candidacy, that will take votes away from the republicans and strengthen the possibility of president obama getting back in again. money is the milk of politics and the two parties have all the money. there has not been a successful third-party candidacy in american presidential history ever. the high tide of it was teddy roosevelt in 1912 going against the incumbent from his own party would split the republican party and led to woodrow wilson getting in.

there have been attempts at that before. how the networks determine who gets the air time and a third party thing is really tough. i have heard governor buddy roemer's name mentioned this morning. he is a really good guy and really working hard. his fans have been upset that he has not been included in all the debates or any of the debates. where do you draw the line? federally registered to run for president, i think there is in excess of 130 candidates. in new hampshire alone, i think there are more than 17, 18 candidates listed on the two- party ballot. there is a dozen or more on the republican side so how you have all of those people in an hour and a half an anything longer you will lose the attention span

of people and have any kind of discussion at all? that perryetly hoping bap would have dropped out of the debate we are having tonight and tomorrow could be among three or four candidates. therefore the question is to have more time and the candidates would have more time for really good back-and-forth discussion. only a couple will only be able to go on. host: this can be found on your web page union. leaderscom. the lesson from i awoke, researciowa --

you finish up by saying voters may find other candidates personally appealing but the new gingrich record of conservative accomplishment is unparalleled and his belief and vision are passionate and clear. romney was governor of the most liberal state in the country managed to beat obama at delivering obamacare. forget the negative advertising. guest: you read it just like roads. host: thank you very much.

arnold after voters sent to alter the course a little bit and move speaker gingrich of tax is that what it will take to dismantle or at least give some pause to the romney campaign? guest: that is my hope. i thank new hampshire will alter somewhat the way things are now. new hampshire filters people out. somebody who does not finish in the top three or four is not going to be able to go on. huntsman is a wild card. if ron paul has young people support, bonds and has the other part of the young people support. we had a front-page story today on a high school in new hampshire that decided it like what i would did with the caucuses which is anathema to most of hampshire people. they like the secret ballot but a high school had a caucus and invited the candidates and it broke in favor of huntsman first, ron paul second, and

romney third. santorum and gingrich did not make the first tier with the kids. new hampshire will change things. the headline will probably be romney wins going into the south but the sub headline and i don't know what it will be but it will say it who was going along with him. what we set about by what is that for all this time that brown has been campaigning, he cannot get above 25% of the votes. the polls here say he will do 40-45%. that would be a heck of a change. given his status as a semi- citizen of new hampshire, that would be the strongest real success he has had to date. that could make him the eventual nominee.

there are an awful lot of conservatives who don't like the idea and i would not be surprised, it might be wishful thinking, that after new hampshire, rick perry, rick santorum, and newt gingrich got together and said we are much more light than we are against -- much more alike than we are against romney and told us should get out and backed the other one. that could be fun. host: there is a sub had in the story in "the wall street journal" -- why is governor romney favored in this state with this active tea party and the socially conservative legislature when you've got folks on the bill right now who are, by all intents and purposes, with more conservative than the former

governor? guest: very interesting question -- new hampshire is not socially conservative. the legislature did swing wildly last time around from democrat to republican. it did so mostly on fiscal issues, not on social issues but a lot of the republicans who got in happened to be more socially conservative than the regular folks. the tea party is not that strong in a hampshire either. it is a force but not the overwhelming force. romney has got the republican establishment backing and he has got the republican establishment media backing. being a fan of gingrich, have watched with great interest the response to him. as soon as he started climbing in the polls and we endorsed

him, i have never seen such a carpet bombing of one candidate by not only the other candidate and the other candidates super pac by the conservative media, the national review, which background last time, and also the cable news media. gingrich's an open book. he has had a lot of personal baggage and people in the media brought it up time after time. i am surprised frankly that he made it out of iowa into new hampshire with the kind of drubbing he has gotten. romney has a couple of former governors and his camp, former u.s. senator judd gregg will also back to george bush over ronald reagan in 1980, john sununu who was the george bush chief of staff and does not like newt gingrich because of the tax deal that newt gingrich would not go along with.

yotte ot u.s. senator a and that helps him in new hampshire. we are fiscally conservative not socially conservative. new hampshire may be one of the least churched states and the nation. even though the majority of people who go to a church are roman catholic, it is a minority of people go to church at all. not seen rickave santorum or newt gingrich who are both catholic make much of that fact. the mormon thing relative to run a and huntsman does not mean anything up. it may be a detriment to governor romney going south from what i understand of the southern republican politics but in new hampshire, i guess this is a good thing, religion does

not make any difference at all. host: los angeles, calif., gym on our line for independence, go ahead caller: let's talk about the former osama bin laden head who endorses ron paul. [inaudible] you will see who is real danger is, the ones to continue the war for israel and distant republicans who have become independent. i have left the party and many others will. we will vote for ron paul as an independent and the neocon gop will lose. host: you get the last word. guest: are not sure what the 9/11 thing. that is probably a reference to

september 11, 2001. ron paul has shamelessly stated we brought that on ourselves. that is one reason why think he is a dangerous man. host:joe mcquaid is the present and publisher of "the union leader." guest: thank you. host: coming up in 45 minutes, a discussion on super pacs. after this break, a discussion on why the republican liberty caucuses choice to endorse rumble for president. first, another visit to the red arrow diner in manchester which is a frequent stop along the campaign trail in new hampshire. >> at the 24-hour diner, there is a lot of memorabilia on the walls.

we have two residents here. who are you going to vote for in the primary tuesday? >> we are undecided but we are both republicans. >> why are you undecided? >> we want to understand where they are. later in the primary, [inaudible] >> does that mean you're listening to tonight's debate? >> i want to hear what they're going to do and and how they're going to improve the economy. last week we talked about defense which was a big issue for me. we will hear what the plan as. >> why is defense a big issue? >> we are in a tough situation

in the world right now. it is important we have the strength and ability to defend ourselves. >> what do you do for a living? >> i-map project manager. -- i am a project manager for black and decker. >> is there any candidate your favorites now? >> i am favre in mid romney -- i am favoring mitt romney and newt gingrich. >> why? >> met romney has a good track record as governor and newt gingrich has some good plans. i know i'm brent when he was speaker of the house. he owns up to his mistakes and

he is ready to lead us forward. >> it is important that he admitted to mistakes? >> absolutely. >> senator john mccain was zero couple of days ago and endorsed mitt romney. did you vote for john mccain the last time around? >> i voted for him last time. seeing that he supported mitt romney is a big plus in mid romney's faber. favor. >> what will make a difference if you are torn between mitt romney and newt gingrich, what will make the difference tonight? >> it would be how they present themselves and their accuracy. >> would you think is a better match against barack obama? >> i would say right now mitt

romney. >> why? >> he is better positioned than has the experience. i like gingrich but [inaudible] >> karen your wife is here. you are undecided as well you will vote in the republican primary. do you enter has been argue about these candidates? >> not really. >> do you plan to agree with them more votes with somebody else? >> i am not sure yet. [inaudible] i'm looking for the economy to get better. hopefully, that will work out

better. >> thank you very much for your time this morning and i know you have at your breakfast. we will see you on tuesday. host: another look at manchester, new hampshire where we've got folks camp out and stake out and cover all sorts of aspects of the upcoming new hampshire primary on tuesday. if you want more details about what we're covering as we move into tuesday, you can find it on our website, c-span.org. right now, we're bringing in carolyn mckinny, the chairman of republican caucus of new hampshire and is here to continue our discussion regarding the countdown to the new hampshire primary. welcome to the program. guest: thank you, it is great to be here. host: what is the republican liberty colchis?

guest: we are a grass-roots organization and we are dedicated to promoting and advancing the traditional republican principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise within the new hampshire republican party, the state legislature, and the general public here in new hampshire. we do that through a variety of activities including supporting candidates for elective office, legislative activism, media outreach, and public education efforts. host: the parent organization has endorsed ron paul. will the rlc of new hampshire make a separate endorsement? guest: actually, as a state organization, we focus specifically on the state of new hampshire. our endorsements are limited to

state offices like governors and state senators and house representatives. it is just the republican liberty caucus nationally who handles federal endorsements. host: what is the role of big rlc of new hampshire in the new hampshire primary? guest: in the presidential primary, we don't get involved very heavily. we don't handout endorsements. all of our members are very active in presidential politics, naturally, but we focus mainly on our state's primary which is in september. in 20 tent which is the first year we got heavily involved in the elections -- in 2010, which is the first year with a heavily involved in the elections, we were able to endorse many candidates. we had about an 80% success rate

which has resulted in about 1/4 of the new hampshire legislature being endorsed by the republican liberty caucus. >> we are talking with carolyn mckinney. we're continuing our discussion regarding the countdown to the new hampshire primary. if you want to get involved, the phone numbers are on your screen. we want to go into more about the rlc of new hampshire. as far as -- have been working on programs to get more people out to vote on tuesday or trying to educate them as to the various campaign issues that are

being discussed by the candidates? guest: we don't deal whole lot with presidential politics. our focus right now is on legislative activity. the new hampshire legislature just started up its 2012 session. we have geared up our weekly e- mail and send that out to our activists that recommends bills before the legislature's as to whether to support or oppose them. that first one went out last week and that is really what we're focused on now. beginning in june, we will be focused on state primary races. host: there is a feeling there is so much political activity in your state. is now a good time to go out and recruit more members and get them involved?

absolutely, after january 10 as the best time for us to recruit. we have some activist right now more focused on the presidential primaries. we have many activists that are working the presidential campaigns for the candidates of their choice and a lot of effort is going into these campaigns. after january 10, everyone takes the breath and i have more free time and that will be the time for people to start funneling their energy into an organization like the rlcnh and affect change in new hampshire. host: our first call comes from brunswick, maine, on our line for republicans. caller: i'm a republican and in support of sarah palin. i am looking at ron paul. i'm the father and grandfather.

i recently saw this youtube thing of ron paul predictions. we have a caucus here in maine. i am going the way of ron paul because there are some things you don't get out of the mainstream media. that is just my comment. thanks. host: your thoughts on his comments? guest: one of the reasons that the rlc national endorsed ron paul is they believe him to be the most consistent conservative, the most consistent supporter of liberty. he is the one that understands our economic situation has been talking about it for years. he has predicted a lot of our economic woes because he understands the federal reserve and are mont -- monetary policy.

he really has been a consistent defender of traditional american values in that way. they have recognized that and i love going back and looking at old ron paul videos because he says the same thing now that he said 20 years ago. you cannot say that about every candidate on the stage and that is one reason, one of many, i support him personally. host: evanston, ill., on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. old african-r- american born in south carolina and i'm very afraid of ron paul. his son made a statement that people should let people eat in their restaurants whoever they want to read in their restaurants. that takes you back in time.

as the gentleman stated, the reason the young people are voting for ron paul is because he wants to legalize marijuana. can you imagine young people walking around all day high of marijuana? people smoke marijuana and will not want to work. thank you very much and have a blessed day. guest: on the marijuana issue, going back to ron paul consistency, he has consistently supported states' rights for things that are not specifically written in the constitution. drug \laws are not specifically enumerated in the constitution and he believes that to be handled at a state level. i don't think he would force the legalization of marijuana at the federal level and make every

state legalize marijuana. that is not his position. his position is the dna should not go in and -- dea should knock raid people in oregon and california under the bush administration and putting people in prison for using medical marijuana even though it is legal in california and oregon. that is not the role of the federal government. the federal government has specific powers in dealing with drug laws and that is not enumerated in the constitution. it goes back to him being consistent in his philosophy and that is returning the power to the people by sending it back to the local level. the: we've mentioned that national organization, the national republican liberty caucus has endorsed ron paul candidacy. because the the rlc of new

hampshire -- have other candidates been trying to get your and does -- endorsement or try to record your members and work for them because you have this grass-roots organization in new hampshire? guest: yes, it was a big story about 15 months ago when the former chairman of the rlc was hired by the new gingrich campaign to run the operation in new hampshire many people are sympathetic to rlcnh positions have also joined other campaigns. there is certainly not one specific candidate that rlcnh members support but ron paul has a majority of support among our members.

host: our next caller on our line from independence is calling from new jersey, go ahead caller: good morning, i am asking if you are aware of provisions in the recently signed military authorization act allowing the military to arrest american citizens anywhere in the world including the united states and put them in military detention without trial or access to a lawyer? is your organization concerned about civil liberties and did you take a position on these provisions before they were enacted by congress and what do you think of them now that they have been enacted? guest: yes, the national defense authorization act was a very disturbing bill to our members. it is very concerning that

congress and the president would give this power of indefinite detention of american citizens to the military without due process and that is a clear violation of the constitution in my mind. the rlc national was vocal on this issue before the vote happened. they were sending out information trying to get their members to contact members of congress in order to defeat this bill. ron paul, again, one of the only candidates on the republican stays that spoke out against this bill because it is an incredible violation of the civil liberties of americans. he has been a consistent opponent of these types of grabs by the federal government. host: our line from republicans, from iowa, go ahead. caller: we got cut off the first time i talked to you before the iowa caucus.

i have three points to want to make -- the iowa caucus have lines of people signing up to be republicans which i questions. maybe there were democrats signing up to block the republican caucus. i have concerns about that and many of them were voted for ron paul. feel ronlicans don't paul could be our commander in cheaper the first job of our president is to be commander in chief and ron paul does not fit the picture. he just doesn't. there is no way he will be our president. i have a lot of concerns. it of a lady who called in and said conservative people were greedy or did not give to people. if the conservative people of united states held back their

coffers, but homeless people, the crisis centers, all these places would be shut down. they give by droves through churches and that gives to the homeless shelters and many places. guest: i am not questioning the ladies experience in her district but from the poll that i looked at on the iowa caucus night, only 3% of the people entering the iowa caucuses were democrats who switched their registration. unfortunately, the talking point to democrats switching to support ron paul just doesn't hold up toyes, ron paul does extremely well among independents.

he caught 50% of the independent vote and the other 50% was divided among the other candidates. he is very popular amongst independence which i think would indicate that he is a very strong candidate for the general election. as far as commander in chief, i think is finish in iowa and his rise in the polls has given him the opportunity to clarify his foreign policy position. many people have tried to paint him as an isolationist but even during his campaigning leading up to the iowa caucuses, he made it clear that he would be willing to use military force if authorized by congress in advance of any attack on the united states. he will not wait for us to get attacked which is what some people claim. he made it clear in an interview yesterday here in new hampshire

that on national security issues, if our national security was threatened somewhere else in the world, he would take a look at the information and if it was credible, he would bring it to congress and ask for a declaration of war and of congress declared war which is the constitutional way to wage war, he would go after them hard and get it over with quickly and wind. . that is what we need. a strong leader and national defense but one that is cautious to war and respects the constitution in the way it suggests we may or other nations. host: here is safe tweet --- guest: i think there are some things that appeal to young

people about ron paul's message. clearly, the message of liberty is very appealing to many people but also these young people are looking at the message as noninterventionism, his humble foreign policy and they say they like this. they say this is how we should be in the world. i'm not sure of the republican party continues to be very hawkish as it has been in the past, whether they will stick with the republican party. i think that remains to be seen. if these young people stick with the republican party, yes, i think we will publish a -- will probably see a much more libertarian republican party moving forward.

host: our next call comes from bristol, rhode island, on our line for independence. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am an independent. i am a korean war veteran. we hold these truths to be self evident and we are all created equal and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what we are really after -- in this country, unfortunately, we have a moral dilemma and that moral dilemma is not religious. it has nothing to do with religion because people have been on both sides of this from all devin religions but is the 30 some million abortions taking place in this country for the past 20 years or so. it is something that is not a

single issue item. if you kill these human beings, they have no right to be concerned about economic issues, jobs, a gay-rights, security, and a thing. -- anything. we've got to stop killing our future. that is why i am leaning very heavily toward republicans. i'm independent and i have voted on both sides. a number of times throughout my long history. i think you are right. i am personally pro-life and that is another reason why i support dr. ron paul. he has a very consistent pro- lifer record in the united states congress. in the last congressional session, he got 100% rate in from the national right to life

committee. he understands that life is the basis for liberty. we cannot have liberty without life. as you said, our children are our future. i am very proud that he supports that position. i think the problem with our country, you are right, it is a moral dilemma. another big piece of that is that personal responsibility in this country has really been eroded by these fire walls that have been put up. for example, the financial scandals that have happened on wall street -- the boards of these companies have no skin in the game. they have no personal responsibility to make sure their companies are on the right track. our congress people, when they

do something wrong, they don't take personal responsibility for the problems they have brought. there needs to really be returned to personal responsibility in order to put this country back on track. host: mckinney is the chairman of the republican liberty caucus of new hampshire. she was instrumental in the organization's success in getting 107 endorsed candidates elected to state offices in november, 2010. 70% of the candidates were recently endorsed by the organization. tweet-- a guest: actually, ron paul made

it clear in his plan to restore america that there are some core functions within the five departments that he would eliminate. they would be moved elsewhere in the government. for example, pell grantees this of the ku identified as something that would stay and moved elsewhere. that is a central piece to the federal government's higher education policy and it is not something he has suggested getting rid of. take a look more closely at his plan and you can find it at ron paul2012.com and it will make it clear that not everything -- not every function within those departments is getting eliminated, just the departments themselves and a lot of the waste that goes with it. host: california, go ahead

caller: i'm a christian and i live in northern california. my concern is whether it is in new hampshire or iowa or any state, this is the time for people to take care in their belief system when it comes to selecting a leader for our country. the issue surrounding new hampshire now, this is about leadership. the past leaders of america should have learned. underneath all of this is a deception. the deception is that it is religious. they are relying on their belief systems and relying on their financial systems and it has broken down. people should take care and pay

attention. dr. ron paul is a philistines and a conviction all in his beliefs. in my opinion, he is not a good leader. he is a follower. guest: as i said before, one of the reasons that ron paul was endorsed by our parents organization is he is willing to go out as a lone voice in being a proponent of liberty. he is one of the only ones on the republican stage speaking against the national defense authorization act. to call him a follower especially when he is the one that is believe the charge on the federal reserve, there are lots of issues you can name where he has been the lone voice. to call the may follow or is

clearly not looking correctly at his record. host: here is an e-mail -- guest: yes, he gets the most donations from active military members. getsretty sure that he more campaign contributions from active military than all the other candidates combined the. omber is quite high. host: here is another email -- sure aboutnot quite those particular issues.

when it comes to government efforts to regulate the environment, he is generally against them. he wants to strengthen private property rights. when private property rights are strong, your neighbor does not have the right encroach on your land. that means putting stuff in your water table or whatever that means. private property rights are really key to our environmental problems moving forward. i'm not sure where he stands on man-made global warming. i have not heard him speak on that issue. host: another call from austin, texas, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning.

this thing about iran being a threat to world peace, if you look back, the united states has been the biggest threat. look at vietnam, based on a live. iraq was based on a lie, and how many innocent people have been killed by the united states? so to me, the united states, butler said that war is iraq, and i think the military industrial complex is taking over my country. i really support dr. paul and his stand on farm policy. host: carolyn mckinney. guest: one thing that dr. paul has talked about consistently is blowback. blowback is something that was defined by the cia, and it is the consequences of our actions.

unfortunately the american people are not able to put it did to the proper context, because our activities overseas are not always known to the public. so he -- i think he is one of -- has the most integrity in that he is the only one that wants to take responsibility for what we have done, and also to return to the founders' view of non interventionism. that as a farm policy philosophy that george washington and thomas jefferson and a lot of the other founders suggested that we use, and it was in place widely speaking until world war rahman one. -- world war one. he is talking of basically a return to one of america's first principles. i am glad he is able to talk about that on the republican

stage. it is refreshing. host: evelyn is our next caller, on our line for independents. go-ahead, evelyn. caller: i like to say that ron paul is our best candidate, number one, because he is looking at our constitutional rights, what america should be doing right now, focusing on america. not all these foreign countries, not pumping all of our money into all these other lands, and all the things that they have problems with. we need to take care of america's problems. as far as someone saying that he is dangerous because of marijuana? if you were to legalize marijuana in separate states, we wouldn't have nowhere near this problem that we do with these people coming into our country

killing people over drugs. amine, to me, people need to step up and realize ron paul or newt gingrich either one or both looking at our liberties. and everyone else is looking to get what they can get. host: havilland, let me ask you this before we let go. which constitutional rights are you worried about losing if ron paul is not elected president? caller: i am afraid of losing all constitutional rights. host: carolyn mckinney. guest: she is absolutely right. ron paul is a very america first philosophy, and that does resonate with republicans. i think in that country in general as well, because we're such an economic crisis, that people are looking around and

saying, what can we do to fix america? and i think ron paul represents the change that all lot of people were looking for in president obama in the 2000 elections. unfortunately president obama has doubled down on the status quo. although he is talking about getting about afghanistan and cutting the military a little bit now, he remained in afghanistan for the majority of his presidency. he got us involved in libya. he is talking about an additional intervention in other lands. for a lot of independents, they would look at ron paul and say that this is the change that we were really looking for. he has the answers and knows how ethics our problems because he knew what our problems were even before they happen. host: the suffolk university has put out of paul between january

2 and january 5, governor romney had 44%, representative paul at 20%, and former speaker newt gingrich at 8%. if ron paul loses that second place standing on tuesday, is that going to be a significant defeat for his campaign? will be able to go on to south carolina and florida if he finishes in the lower than third or fourth? guest: i think he will go on. i think his campaign is very organized. he is obviously able to raise money better than most of the other candidates with the exception of running. -- of mitt romney. his message of change is different than what the other republicans are saying. i think it's path to the

presidency would be diminished but he will take it all the way to the convention, especially since a lot of the -- well, all the states have gone to the proportional delegate system. is it will be of little bit longer of the primary road. so there might be still additional hope there. host: next up, mike and online from democrats, calling from new york, new york this morning to. caller: good morning, ms. mckinny. a couple of problems. one of the problems is that it is a matter of age. here's a man who is somewhere in his mid-70s's, and at the end of his first term in office, he would be 81 or 82. i do not see that happening. it is the same problem that john mccain had. number two, he has not trillion

really talk about the press releases that he signed -- he has not truly an really talk about the press releases that his son. how can he say that he never read what was on the press releases? i do not think he has been truthful about that. that is all i have to say. host: carolyn mckinney go ahead. guest: regarding his age, that was a very big consideration of ronald reagan when he was running. he was advanced in age as well, and people criticized him for being too old to run. and he held elected office for eight years. i think he is able to overcome that, especially because he does iranian people. he does appeal to independents. i do not think that will really hurt him. as for the newsletter is, not

press releases, and they went out under his name but from what i understand he did not sign them. he has disavowed them. he says that he does not agree with what is in them. he said it was a mistake to allow other people to publish under his name. i think if you look at the rest of his career, the rest of his personal life, you will see that he is a man of integrity. he does what he says and he says what he does. i do not see a reason to not believe him on this one particular instance, when he has shown himself to be truthful in every other situation. host: claremore, okla. on aligned for republicans. jim, you are on the line with carolyn mckinney. caller: i support ron paul. anyone that would research his words -- and one thing i wanted

appointment, not known when does he get more -- not only does it get more donations from the military, a military chief has endorsed him. and the democrats and republicans, the normal machine is going to him, because overwhelmingly they keep pushing the same agenda that has put us into this mess. they have separated the people more than they have ever been. they have put this into financial problems and wars we do not need to be in. host: carolyn mckinney. guest: i think one thing that is separating americans in addition to the agenda in general, but president obama has been very

evasive in his campaign isive in hisdiveste campaign speeches. he wants to break people and birds. he has a lot of class warfare. ron paul is optimistic in treats everyone as an individual. he values the individual. that is at the core of what it is to be an american, to see everyone with a vacuum, everyone with worth, and everyone can make it here in america. his vision of america is far more compelling and far more unified than anything president obama is putting out their. host: ian from long island, you are on the "washington journal. caller: ron paul as today's,

jefferson. is the only person with a doctor in front of his name, and i agree with you, he has been very consistent with his speech, and he is for america and he is not party political line, and we really do need to clean up our own backyard before we start out in the world as we are losing our influence in the world, because of the record that we have now and after going off the gold standard. ron paul understands the fundamentals of the country, and the deficits, and all of these things where the other incumbents are just doing what you are talking about, creating political gridlock, which is leading to social unrest, and

you are seeing all of these occupy wall street, d.c., the whole bit. i think that he would be an absolute great president if he can just get more of his spunk out there and more of his charisma. host: thank you for the call. carolyn mckinney. guest: i agree. ron paul is very america first and he knows how to fix our problems because he knows what the underlying problem is. a lot of politicians promise to fix the symptoms, but as a good doctor, he has dodd nice that the problem and will treat the problem. -- he has diagnosed the problem and will treat the problem. host: our last call for carolyn mckinney comes online form

democrats. caller: i like to say with all due respect to pearland that when i look at the republican caucuses, that they are having, what i really see is the 1%, kinda like of microcosm of white america, that represents the old school way of thinking. ron paul is too old. he comes from a generation where the world saw things in a totally different way than what the world needs to the. he is only able, it would seem to me, to promote what is already -- what has already happened in this country and he is not giving in the new paths. he is just too old. we need a new way, and that is why i can stick with obama, because he has youth on his side, he has intellect on this side.

host: delores in portland, oregon. carolyn mckinney. guest: as i said earlier, obama has really double down on the status quo. as the caller said, we need someone who can bring more ideas, and frankly ron paul's ideals are so old that they are new again. we have tried certain things in america for the past 40 years to 50 years, and they have resulted in deficits and debt, endless wars, and a whole host of social problems. i think it is time that we reevaluate what we have been doing and to put ourselves on a new path. and ron paul is like no other candidate on either republican or democratic side.

with that change that we will be able to get america back to what made us economically prosperous, and the envy of the world. host: you have been talking to carolyn mckinney, the chairman of the republican liberty caucus of new hampshire's. they found out more about their organization, you can go to their website, rlpnh.org. thank you for being on the "washington journal." we are going to take a short break and when we come back, a discussion regarding the studentcam.org -- super pac. you are watching the "washington journal." today is january 7 and we will be right back. ♪

>> if you really want to see that candidates, our political coverage takes you on the campaign trail. >> exactly who is going to,. it is discouraging. pretty exciting. >> go to town halls, at campaign greets. and bmeet and [unintelligible] >> i am responsible for his being here. [unintelligible] >> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable.

>> it is pleasurable to have a listening ear. >> whether your plans to do that? are you planning on the big companies that are shipping jobs overseas? >> i won a tax code that clears out all loopholes. >> watch our primary coverage on c-span television and on our website, c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: john mcquaid is managing editor at the center for public integrity. he is here to talk about super pac's. what is a super pac and how does it work? guest: is a conduit between zero large donors usually and expenditures to elect or defeat a candidate.

super pac's are new and different things to the citizens united decision, in that they can accept unlimited denominations -- donations from corporations and labor unions and take that and spend it for advertising or direct mail to expressly advocate for or against a candidate. in other words, to put someone into office or to oppose them for office. host: we have some numbers that we're going to be showing our viewers. the first involves super pac's in campaign 2012. 269 groups are organized as super pac's. according to an open secret, the total number of receipts, $32 million. total expenditures, $18 million. the next honorable order is not due until january 31, the day of

the florida primary. and in 2010, the total spending came up to $90 million. how did the -- how were they allowed to operate differently than a regular pac? a lot of senators and congressmen have their own. how do the super pac's differ? guest: it is about the limits and who can give them the money. traditionally we have not allowed corporations to give money to a political action committee. if they could, but it was through contributions through employees, and it was strictly limited. and the limits, and this is what the decision was, little sister of the citizens united decision. the limits were taken away. if you have a regular political action committee, i could only give so much and the committee

could only get $5,000. those limits are not completely gone. the primary difference between that is that the super -- super pac's are not supposed to coordinate with a candidate or a candidate committee. they are supposed act independently. host: the center for public integrity have estimated that millions of dollars have been spent so far. who has benefited the most in your estimation from this outlaying of $13 million? guest: no question -- former gov. mitt romney. he rocketed to the top of the polls, and it -- newt gingrich rocketed to the top of the polls, and as soon as the advertising started from the super pac's, his numbers cratered. it paid off for mitt romney in iowa.

then rick santorum snuck in there and surprised everybody. host: sense they are not supposed to have direct contact with the super pac's, is it that they are betting on who is going to win? guest: they are connected, and that is what is disturbing. the three founders of the mitt romney pac, they are former mitt romney campaign officials. it is fairly obvious that we know who they want to win this election. and they were involved in 2008. i am not sure that they need to coordinate, they know what they need to do. host: we're talking about super pac's in early primaries. we would like for you to get involved. here are the numbers.

as we are counting down toward tuesday's new hampshire primary, we have a special line for new hampshire residents. and as we wait for the funds to heat up, talk to us about what the voters know and what they do not know about the ads that are being produced by these super pac's. guest: they do not know very much. this is bad news/good news. we were looking at the groups formed to support presidential candidates. so far the spending has been by the so-called super pac's. the supreme court did say that disclosure rules would remain in tact. we will find out who the contributors to these groups are, and we do know little bit about it gave money to the omney pac,c -- ru

for example. in florida, we have 12 super money and have spent can have yet to reveal who has given the money. others are utterly ambiguous, if you're looking for disclaimers. you have no clue who is actually paying for this ad. host: we have a list from today's "washington post" regarding the new hampshire primary, south carolina and florida will all of taken place beat for who has been organizing and donating to these super pac's. with these discloses on january 31, what kind of effect will it have on the events that come

afterwards, the other caucuses and primaries? guest: a lot depends on how we reported. i have seen some really good reporting on super pac's and there is curiosity as to what they are. people are baffled by it. we have a great explainer on our website if you like to take a lead that. they're people making predictions, a republican- affiliated said thursday that after florida, and from the does great this week, it may be over with anyway. it is hard to say. host: the north from stone mountain, ga., you are on the "washington journal" with john mcquaid. caller: i would like unknown whether there are foreigners

such as saudi arabia that can donate to super pac's, and do the same rules apply for super pac's as it does for the u.s. chamber of commerce? guest: no foreign contributions to my knowledge. there are no foreign contributions allowed. they are shut up with the same otherby regular pac's than the unlimited. the chamber of commerce, that is interesting because the chamber has been able to, since this court decision in 2010, it will be free to do the same kinds of buys that the super -- super pac's are doing. the challenge to the chamber and other nonprofit groups, and something more disturbing than the super pac's, the nonprofits now do not have to say who their

donors are. we may never know who is paying for those debts. the groups themselves are not telling us right now on their disclosure forms. so they are not specifically required to do so. host: south carolina on the line for republicans. caller: i have a comment and a question. first of all, about the super pac's, my comments about them. the supreme court decision, as i see it, and you can correct me if i'm wrong, without that decision it was sort of like the democrats were financially going to hold the upper hand with all the money that they can raise out of hollywood and everything, that it is going to be like, well, they can buy every election. that's just the country boys out look on it. that's my comment, and you can correct me if i'm wrong. and if you will allow me the

time, i've been trying to call in when the girl from the republican up in the new hampshire was on. i could not make it in. but one thing i've been wanting to ask about our president, president obama, is that when i grew up, i was born in the late 1940's, and i grew up when communism was just the dirtiest word and i grew up through the and i'm and we fought all war against the spread of communism for eight years or nine years there, and then ronald reagan came along in the 1980's and topple wall torn down, and was supposedly defeated communism. now here we stand today, and the question i want to put to you, if you can help me, held in the world can we have the president's they can hire communists in his cabinet, such as van jones?

going offink we're the rails there. talk to us about what he talked about in the beginning, regarding hollywood money, i guess, for the liberals versus let's say big business money for republicans and conservatives. no one really has the upper hand on this as far as super pac's, is that correct? guest: it depends on how you look at it. there does not seem to be much question that right now business in general, business interests benefit and the democrats know this. generally that countervailing influence has been unions, and now there is a super pac that supports president obama that is largely union. they have not raised nearly as much but they do not need to because we're going to the gop

primary. but the single biggest contribution we have seen so far is to the obama-supporting super pac, from jeffrey katzenberg, $2 million, the ceo of a dream works. that is a lot of money. you have bob perry, $2.5 million, he has given that to american crossroads, the republican uber super pac, which is outspent everyone by many miles. for romney, you left four donations of $1 million, including one hedge fund manager who won against the housing boom and made his fortune. it is a question that will pick

you in trouble all the time. to the earlier point, which is, the supreme court word about balance between republicans and democrats, they were not looking at that it that way. they're considering it as a first amendment issue. this is about expenditures and whether you have the right to spend as much money as you want to for dissipate in elections, and what the supreme court decided, corporations and labor union should have the right. however, there is a corrupting influence in here, and you cannot give that money directly to a candidate. somehow that is corrupting. so you can spend corporate and labor money as long as you do not spend it on the candidate personally. host: florida on our line for independents. caller: this is a great topic. my question is, i want to say, i

do not understand how all these politicians talk about loving the american people, and yet when the supreme court makes this decision to empower people with a lot of money, big donors themselves, there is not a lot of outrage. you think that anyone at any point in our lives will introduce the bill that will return the voting to the popular vote? and the reason why ask that, it seems whoever wins the most votes wins, get rid of the electoral college, and get it but i do not understand it. and a lasting now want to say, if you let people spend unlimited money, what is wrong with making them put their name to it? guest: that last question is the best one adult. there is nothing wrong with that. i think we have a right to know who is basically paying for our elections and helping get people into office. as to the electoral college, i am not going near that one.

something for another day. generally, how to clean this up, like i said, what the supreme court was looking at was the first amendment. we do not have anything in the constitution that says that there shall be no corruption, specifically referencing money in politics. we have a privately financed electoral system. as long as that is the case, we can pass law after law and they will find a loophole after loophole. it goes on and on. host: you mentioned earlier, jeffrey katzenberg who donated $2 million to a super pac that supports the president. if he wanted to donate directly to the president, what with his limit the? guest: right now adjusting for inflation, it is $2,500 per election, so for the primary and

general, $5,000. host: and the citizens united decision -- does that affect bundling? guest: no, if you can think of that as someone who collects the checks, some people who give the regulated amount and they put them all together and put it in and on blood and ride it -- and handed to the candidate. host: but each individual check could be more than $2,500. guest: exactly. host: we are with john dunbar from the center for public integrity. california, thank you for waiting. caller: thanks for c-span and for taking my call. i have three questions and i will take my answers offline. one common to you see in the future with your organization --

one, to you think they'd you can with your organization change what the supreme court did? and you think any candidate, if they become president, [unintelligible] guest: all we can do is draw attention to it and try to do the best we can to show who the people are that are finding these groups and organizations. we do not advocate for legislation. we are essentially a news organization that talks about money in politics in particular. on the second, as far as whether congress is going to move, there is a bill actually -- i think it is chris van hollen, the disclose act, so there is movement in the legislature to do so -- to do something to require more disclosure.

whether that happens are not, we have this battle regulate so we would end up with another campaign finance reform, and it is always a war. it could happen, who knows? host: @ from detroit, michigan on our line for republicans. caller: i do not know if you're sophisticated to understand the problem but this is the symptom. the problem is that government has so much regulatory control to the tune of trillions of dollars that they attract corruption. by eliminating people's free speech rights and the means by which they communicate their ideas, you are not attacking the problem. if you want to attack the problem, if you take money away from government and the regulatory power, put it back in the hands of the people. instead of bribing someone to guess what you want, if you have to satisfy consumer preferences. that is my comment. host: let me ask you this, ed.

are sellingc's their support by giving the money. guest: they are not competitive on a free market framework for it so they have to go to the government to give preferential treatment. the government is a market for corruption and buying favors. you need a voluntary exchange on the free market. guest: i do not have anything to move -- to add on that. host: good morning, if you are on the "washington journal." guest: i think the electorate has been manipulated to a large degree during election time, but never as much as what has been

done to newt gingrich. believe me, i'm no fan of mr. gingrich. it is deplorable. laurence lessig is excellent on this issue, particularly money in congress. host: john dunbar. guest: i notice that book and it is doing very well. the ideas are publicly financed election system. we have had this conversation. is the ultimate anti-corruption weapon. it would literally be a way to take private money out of the process. to fund elections through -- some states do that now. to do that on the federal

level, the way interests are entrenched right now, it would be a really tough road. host: we have an e-mail from james gibbs who wants to know what the penalty is for a super pac coordinating with an individual campaign. who monitors that? guest: that is one of the great problems of this system. we do have a large dog in the federal elections commission. it has three republicans and three democrats and in the last several years, they have not agreed on anything. in terms of what the penalties are, for coordination, honestly i have not looked them up because i have not seen any example of anyone actually being punished for that. not to say it has not happened. but that brings up are really salient point, how do you prove coordination? short of following them around

and listening to their conversations and tapping their phones, i am not exactly sure how you would even prove that and how it would bring a case or if anybody in the government would even bother trying to bring a case. host: been from ohio brings us this e-mail. guest: absolutely. cannot disagree with that. it is incumbent upon the people to learn as much as they can about the messages that they are getting and to learn as much as they can about the organizations behind them and to learn as much as they can about the interests behind the organization's. it is a lot of work, but the

organizations out there are trying to create rules and create means for people to learn that so that they consider who is sponsoring these messages, but their legislative agenda, their ideological agenda when they make it. the real caution here is to be skeptical. take what you're listening to or seeing with a grain of salt. and check it out. in the internet age, google searches, there is more information out there tebet what people are saying to you than there ever has been before. host: john dunbar, managing editor of the center for public integrity, greg it, go ahead please. caller: thank you for c-span. i had a question about how super pac's are organized and run. for example, can they dissolve

before the reporting period is up? would they still have to report? and the form may -- and could they reconstitute under a new name, therefore keeping anonymous? how easy is it to set up a super pac and manipulated? guest: if you do this all pac, you file a determination report and it contains all the affirmation in a regular report. host: if someone is supporting a -- if the super pac is supporting a candidate that does not make it to florida, they still have to let someone know how much they spend and how much -- where the money came from. guest: and they reported to the federal election commission. you can go to their website and on the press page, there is a

list of every super pac registered right now. you mentioned an open secrets, they do a great job listing the organizations and aggregating what they're spending. host: next up is a chain from illinois this morning. -- jane from mellon bank -- from illinois. caller: i am 60 miles south of chicago. i am not near urbandale. my concern is that citizens united decision, i feel it is unconstitutional. the reason i feel that is because corporations do not get a voter's card. i go to the polls and i have to show my card and i get a ballot. but i have never seen them issue a ballot in collaboration with their name on it. i think is totally corrupting

our voting. i was wondering, could the justice department issued -- show them of voters card and ask them how this could curb their host system. what would stop the taliban from setting up a super pac and corrupting our whole election? host: before he responds, i want to read you a tweet. caller: of corporation does not get its name on a global registration -- voter registration card. they cannot get a ballots and vote. the corporation is not a registered voter. host: john dunbar, go ahead.

guest: you could say the same thing about labor unions. historically, it will -- the country has considered it a priority to keep labor money and corporate money out of politics with varying degrees of success. i think you put the finger on the core issue here. and that is, it really is a first amendment issue. i do not think there is any other way to look at it other than we have extended this first amendment right to what is essentially of corporate treasury. it is curious in that way that they have first amendment rights. host: from the associated press, just this week, and new committee supporting rich santorum, the red white and blue fund, it may request of the federal election commission.

guest: that is what i mean about the vagaries of the reporting system. this is something that came up, a story in politico, about a week ago, the issue is groups were filing quarterly, and once you get into the campaign season where you have 50 primaries and spread out across the entire year, you have these pre-primary reports, and post-primary reports.

there is going to be a lot of reports. whereas if you're filing monthly, and the ftc is recommending this. . -- fec is recommending this. you just have the one report and you don't have all this pre- filing business. that timing in which we have made the switch has made this almost completely blind before this first round of primaries, which may be conclusive, because we have a big stake in the front in which we have not had before, florida. if you have somebody that takes the clean sweep through florida and no reporting, then it is the same result. there is no logic attached to it. in terms of, making sure that people know -- they do not.

so they will not. with the exception of two super and the last time they filed was in july. host: back to the phones. caller: a few comments and then i will ask the gentleman a question. these are lobbyists that are financing these campaigns, is what it did they are. -- is what they are. they have a corrupting influence around the world. one example of how america is on the wrong side because of this corrupting influence of pac's. nelson mandela went to the west bank and said it was worse for the zero worst apartheid than he had gone through under south africa. host: can we limit the

discussion to elections happening here in the united states? caller: they will finance the these mysterious pac's, all the campaigns, and try to use this power over the media. host: thank you for the call. anything regarding his statement, a big influx, has aipac created a pac? guest: i would mess up the name, but there is a republican jewish organization that as well funded, that has been spending money in congressional races of are, specific -- particularly the special election in new york, and they may or may not get involved. i try to stay away from the issues, but the overall point is that if an ideological group

wants to get involved, it can create a nonprofit, and this is the scary part, they can make the independent expenditures and they do not have to reveal to their donors are. that brings up another issue, interest versus ideology, something i'm trying to unwind myself. if you give $2 million, is it because you want someone to give you a good regulatory decision for your business? or are you just a good republican? not sure how that is going to unwind in the 2012 election. host: what about the issue of lobbyists that was brought up? are lobbyists feeding the super pac? is it another way to buy influence? guest: the same people have been running the show for a long time. the short answer is, no, not as far as i know.

the election lawyers, they are the ones that are filing the paperwork and fighting the court battles, getting the advisory opinions, that is making a possible. the political operatives which fate -- which may very well be a lobbyist, haley barbour being a great example of that for american crossroads, they all each have their own function. a player is a player in washington. host: want to show our viewers a list of 2012 presidential candidates and the super pac's supporting them. the money spent, for the iowa caucuses. we had a wreck. super pac -- we have our rick perry super pac, --

back to the funds. kentucky on our line for democrats. philip, you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a problem with all the super pac's. i understand the unions, their members do have the votes in what they support. but the other super pac's, i do not see how corporation has the right to contribute to these funds. and i like your comments on that. guest: with a labor union, you

do know what their intention is. it is not hard to figure out what they want to do. with a corporate contribution, in fact, we're seeing more individual contributions and not corporate contributions so far, which is interesting. it us are like super donors that have been giving monies to these 527 groups in the past, like the republican governors association, pretty much the same crew. i did want to something -- mention something quickly about the numbers, because people will be confused by them. there is advertising and then individual expenditures. with the center is doing is looking specifically at independent expenditures filed with the federal election commission. a lot of the media has been using advertising estimates from media buys.

the numbers that you see on advertising are much lower than is what being spent to support or oppose a candidate. in florida, restore our future has moved on the florida and they are worried about newt gingrich and they have spent a couple -- $200,000 on direct m ail. host: some of the names that we talked about earlier on the presidential candidates and the super pak supporting them, the list that we're getting ready to show our viewers are the top non-candidate affiliated super pac's, listed by the money that they raise. as if it is hard enough to figure out what these other ones are, and we know they are

supporting particular candidates, now you have these ones that are non-affiliated, and you have no idea what they are supporting. guest: you do not, and that would change, you have not seen anything yet. they are just getting fired up. some are bigger than others, american crossroads is one of those nonprofits that i was talking about which does not have to reveal its donors. is the biggest kid on the block. the democrats, they do not have quite the same size organizations, but the obama administration has no problems raising money on its own, thank you very much. it will be interesting to see. the research is out there, and you can find out who they represent. we know that -- and they say they represent, not like that they are that secret. it is helpful to get their message out and if they can get into the newspapers or c-span to

run one of their ads, then that is good for them very much less money that they have to spend on an advertisement. host: greensboro, north carolina. caller: i want to make couple of points. i think mitt romney has received the most money from the super pac's. i think the republican establishment has decided that he will be the candidate and they are contributing a lot to combine all their money and contributing to him. i agree with the previous democrat that called and said that they were not in favor of newt gingrich, but it was awful what they did to him the way the romney campaign could use all the money, even though he said he had nothing to do with it. host: sorry about that, ann. guest: it is driving everyone crazy about what change. that is the whole point of the

supreme court decision. mitt romney is not allowed to talk to the people who got that money or cannot ordinate it. or -- but governor romney was able to stay above the fray. all of his commercials was "he is a great guy a" commercials. and out of the quattrone -- $4.5 million which restore our future spent, nearly all of it was on anti-newt gingrich advertising and direct mail. host: a tweet. guest: i do. i noticed that with great interest. the prevailing view, i think,

from anybody who watches the supreme court is that will not stand. the supreme court was pretty clear. what the montana court did was admirable. there were defiantly saying we do not care what you say, we were up -- we will uphold our own law. someone will challenge that and ultimately it will -- in all likelihood, the supreme court review wells' prevail. host: you are on the "washington journal." caller: i want to make a statement first. our elected officials label other areas and other countries and other governments as being corrupt. but our country measured in dollars is the most corrupt

country in the world. host: we will leave it there because we're running out of time. john dunbar, you have the last word. guest: i had that conversation with a friend of mine in brazil. i said something vaguely political about their democracy developing, and she lit into me about the campaign finance system and the level of corruption. your caller is not the only one that feels that way. host: john dunbar of the center of public integrity, thank you for coming on and talking about super pac's. we want to let our viewers know what is coming up on tomorrow's edition of the "washington journal." we will have to be wasserman schultz, the chairwoman of the democratic national committee, talking to us about the dnc and the obama campaign trying to counter republican candidates' messages. we will also have ralph nader, a

former presidential candidate. and we will wrap up the show with the managing director talking us about the u.s.-iran, and the movement of the military ships through the straits of hormuz. that does it for this edition of the "washington journal." we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >>